Some more excerpts:

Back in September 2004, as a Democratic Senate candidate, you made four revealing points in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. First, you favoured using "surgical" missile strikes against Iran if the sovereign country refused to obey the US and eliminate its nuclear energy program. Second, you criticised the Bush administration's war in Iraq not because it violated every article in the Geneva Convention and every International Law, but because it drew away attention from "greater threats" such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Third, you linked Iran and Pakistan under the banner of "Islamic world". Fourth, you favoured attacking Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, if...

Some more excerpts:

Back in September 2004, as a Democratic Senate candidate, you made four revealing points in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. First, you favoured using "surgical" missile strikes against Iran if the sovereign country refused to obey the US and eliminate its nuclear energy program. Second, you criticised the Bush administration's war in Iraq not because it violated every article in the Geneva Convention and every International Law, but because it drew away attention from "greater threats" such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Third, you linked Iran and Pakistan under the banner of "Islamic world". Fourth, you favoured attacking Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, if Pakistan's self-appointed president, Pervez Musharraf, was overthrown by Pakistanis who have every reason to want him gone and every right to struggle toward this goal. I quote you: "I think there are elements within Pakistan right now -if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over- I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."

You didn't care to elucidate what you meant by 'elements' nor whom you meant by 'they'. Pakistan has 160 million people. I think we have a right to know exactly which one of us you meant. I think we have a right to know how you calculate risks.
[...]
You are where you are because, as far as world peace is concerned, you're not a candidate for change.
[...]
To be the first international US President who'll change the way America is seen in the World, first change the way you see the World. See it as a partner, not a client. As a common ground, not a junkyard. There is actionable intelligence that the World couldn't be more ready for change.

Uzma Aslam Khan said:

When one supporter was asked what kind of change you represent, she replied: "He comes from a completely different background. He's international. He's interracial ... He represents everything that is America and that is the World. That's what we need right now. He will change the way America is seen in the World."

To me this sums up the enormous gap between how your supporters see America and how others see America.

That gap will persist, and methinks this is not a matter of Obama's or his competitors' attitude but a matter of the US-American body of electors and their way to look over the rim of their own tea cup.
All those who are living under US-backed di...

Uzma Aslam Khan said:

When one supporter was asked what kind of change you represent, she replied: "He comes from a completely different background. He's international. He's interracial ... He represents everything that is America and that is the World. That's what we need right now. He will change the way America is seen in the World."

To me this sums up the enormous gap between how your supporters see America and how others see America.

That gap will persist, and methinks this is not a matter of Obama's or his competitors' attitude but a matter of the US-American body of electors and their way to look over the rim of their own tea cup.
All those who are living under US-backed dictatorships and next to the internal time bombs of US-bred rabid extremism cannot vote instead. But they

can at least vote in spirit. I dare to hope (yes, naïvely) that some day my spirit--along with that of millions of others in my humble position--will matter.

I agree.

These are positions of his that I do not like. Clinton and McCain, of course, are MUCH more bellicose.
But the biggest difference lay in how Obama sees foreign policy - and that is wholly different than Bush. He sees America as a player rather than a dominator. He sees foreign policy as a matter of listening well and finding common interest to move forward, rather than simply pressuring others to do what the US wants. He sees decision making as working together to come up with a better solution than either could have created alone - this is truly the first post-modern presidential candidate.
I think that he will afford respect to other nations that could be the most transformative, hate...

These are positions of his that I do not like. Clinton and McCain, of course, are MUCH more bellicose.
But the biggest difference lay in how Obama sees foreign policy - and that is wholly different than Bush. He sees America as a player rather than a dominator. He sees foreign policy as a matter of listening well and finding common interest to move forward, rather than simply pressuring others to do what the US wants. He sees decision making as working together to come up with a better solution than either could have created alone - this is truly the first post-modern presidential candidate.
I think that he will afford respect to other nations that could be the most transformative, hate-reducing thing that has happened in world politics since, well, forever.
And many times these quoted statements come from narrow, hypothetical situations drawn by journalists looking for controversy.
Obama says we. Hillary says I.